Guilds and Warring
 

A good few years ago, Classic had a healthy number of guilds and there was constant wars going on. I consider these to be some of the most enjoyable experiences I've had on Graal, but these days there seems to be less interest in guilds and less loyalty to them from the players, ultimately leading to less wars.

I'd like to see guilds start playing a greater role again. I'd like to introduce more guild forts and tie these into some kind of leader board to track which guilds control the server. I do have an idea for a major redesign of guild forts, but this is still on the drawing board.

I'm also thinking of tying guilds into events. For example, the monthly spar could honour the winning guild as well as the winning player. If the number of guild increases it may be possible to have a monthly guild championship. There's nothing like a bit of guild rivalry to increase the loyalty of its members.

How does everyone currently view the role of guilds in Classic, and what would you like to see in the future for guilds on Classic. ^^

Fix your HD so we have something decent to pk with first.

I think that there are issues with guilds that can only be solved on a global level. Massokre also identified this problem when he tried to do guild work in the past. I have a couple of ideas on how to encourage guild activity on Classic, but what kind of timescale are you looking at here? How long would it take to implement such features? You've mentioned that you've had guild ideas in the past, but nothing ever came of them.

Guild Activity all around Graal has been declining the past couple years. I don't think there may be any effect to get guilds participating here again.

My suggestion is to propose local guilds with great hierarchy on the server, still allowing global guilds, so that there can be more close competition.

Eh? How would that change anything?

It's a good enough idea. Hope it works this time.

I ****ing hate guild gates

Active guild leaders make for active guilds. Having some events based guild activities and bragging rights can't possibly hurt guilds in any way. Ventrue may hate it since, you know, the last man standing wins thing and never admitting you can possibly lose but even they will have to be happy to have some activity.

Guilds survive through wars, what difference does it make what the hit detection is, you're all on equal ground. The wars of old had to be some of the laggiest, most annoyingly horrible pieces of mastery there was but still managed to last 3 days straight without someone complaining they couldn't fight cause they lagged or got hit 3 tiles away. And this was pre npc server as well as post npc server so don't even try to argue that part.

Sorry for the double post but.... REP FOR LUDA!

How can you take over a guilds guildhouse if you can't get in!

I dropped the ball on this one I'M SORRY

Yah good job taking what was a good idea from me and bastardizing it in to an idea that destroyed any sense of fun in guilds.

I guess having more focalized guilds could contribute to more competitiveness.

How could having 2 guilds competing on new guild forts change anything?

Was just a suggestion none the less.

wheres my rep
http://jillsorenson.com/blog/uploads/spicoli.jpg

:confused:

Look. Guild activity is at a low right now. The only major guild that still has respectable activity is US. Ventrue is hit and miss, and beyond that I see very little.

The problem that I find right now is that "guild wars" have no actual way to end, and no reward to the winner. As far as I know, they haven't had either in the past. But really, why do I want to spend 3 hours (or more) bashing my s key when I don't get anything out of it?

The last war I was in, both guilds were declaring victory the entire time, especially when a large portion of the other guilds players were dead/idling. But really, how are we supposed to win? Does the guild with the nerdiest player win just b/c they can stay up later than anyone else? Does the guild with the most members online win? Does the guild who doesn't have all of its members dead for 1 second win?

Even if you find an excuse to declare "victory", you don't gain anything out of it. No tickets, no gelats, no prizes, no nothing. Sure you get some kills I guess, but last time I checked that doesn't buy you anything.

IMO each major guild needs to have a guildfort that is capture-able when three of its members are online. Obviously this wouldn't be perfect, as someone could just log off to stop an attack. But bases need to be assault-able when a solid number of potential defenders are online, bases need to be capture-able (maybe something like MoD or KoM), and guilds need to get rewarded in some way for capturing forts.

I don't know how all the details of such a plan would work, since there are many options for each part (assault, capture, and reward), but I do know that right now guilds have no incentive to war each other (IF they were online at all.) Until a system for winning and rewards is established, I feel that guild activity will remain at the current levels.

I'm sure there are other ideas how to solve this problem, but those are my thoughts.

yea it was much more devestating to classic than me resetting 5 accounts but guess which one I got in trouble for.

I pitched this idea on RC the other day and it turned into an idea people liked for guild wars:

I'm really surprised this hasn't turned into an event since most major games have it already. Since I can't mention specific games I won't, but those who have played them will know what I'm talking about.

Two teams, each team has a VIP/Leader type person who regenerates health at a slow rate. Everyone else on the team goes for the other teams VIP/Leader, when they die they respawn at their team's base UNLESS their VIP/Leader has been killed. Last team standing wins.

Could be applied to guild wars. Guilds choose a person that should be the other guild's target, most likely the leader of the guild, and when that leader falls it's only a matter of time for the rest of the guild to fall(since they can't respawn once their leader is down).

i'm not active enough anymore to run my guild so i just kinda stopped trying

try having some guilds besides US first before you try doing something with them.
cant have many guilds with a playercount of 20.

us , ventrue , uk

DC has a point. It'd be hard to have guild activity with the current playercount. But even if the playercount improved, our current guild system is whack. So either release content to raise the playercount and then work on guild stuff, OR work on guild stuff and then work on playercount-raising content.

I think the obvious answer is the former rather than the latter, but then again thats just my opinion. That being said, a better guild system will definately help out the server, so it has to be taken care of at some point.

Forget it, if you don't know what I mean.

It was an idea to emphasize something like g2k1's kingdoms with the Classic approach.

I've been saying for years that multiguilding was going to kill guilds, and not one person listened to me. If you want to increase guild activity, disable global guilds, and then create an ingame system with some actual rules and heavy restrictions on who can create a guild. Disable multiguilding, so a player's choice actually has consequences (I joined US, I can't get into Ventrue now). Multiguilding made guilds meaningless.

Exactly, but I suggest something such as limited guilds tbh.

Unfortunately almost every servers playercount is too low to have guild wars...

Most guilds have a clause about "no multiguilding", but I doubt that most of them enforce it.

We can't check anymore.

Whenever there is a guild war Slayers joins in. No matter the ammount of people.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking maybe turning Kull's Castle into a guild tower because it isn't going to be used.

with all the super active guilds on classic i think we could use it!!!

it's not like there was a ton of active players or guilds a year or two ago but we still managed to have guild wars then

I don't think guild gates are entirely to blame but I feel they did play a part in the downfall of guild life on Classic since guilds just retreated en masse to their forts and hid behind their gates any time a war started up

I hope NBK, Ventrue, US, Slayers, Rommiel and any other guild gates/bases I missed are removed.

Assuming Ventrue (Bell) will cry (sup Bell) you can keep your catacombs but GTFO the cliff (owned Bell) :-)

owned

The decentral, local guilds have ruined global guilds totally.
I think, local guild should be forbidden, to create a unified graal playership, unified in global guilds.

Local guilds are lame b/c you only draw in players from your server. Global guilds extend over servers and thus have a much larger playerbase to draw from. Besides, not being able to represent your guild on other servers is annoying.

Also, do we really need to give staff something else to do (monitoring local guilds)?

All the major guilds on Classic don't expand too much outside of the server. Ventrue and US are pretty much exclusive to Classic. They aren't drawing players from other servers (I haven't researched, but I wouldn't doubt global guilds only draw players away from Classic).
I can't argue this, if for some reason you wanted to go to another server to prove your guild's might, then you'd be hard pressed to do so without a guild tag. Only real solution would be to create guild backups on the global level so you could use the tag elsewhere.
They'd script a basic system for guild creation, and guild management that the guild leaders would control. The system would be completely automated. Only thing that would be monitored is if inappropriate names slip past the filter.

Sorry to disappoint. I was the one that removed the restriction to be able to enter the Catacombs which is technically our base. I also don't really care if milf hill is reopened to everyone. At least Ventrue's area was entirely visible to anyone so we could at least taunt each other and enemies could toss bombs on the hill without us being able to do much but toss them back.

I am entirely against the huge restrictions allowed right now for guilds. I don't mind a few restricted levels per guild but the way it is now is ridiculous.

As far as local guilds go. No, those suck, they have a purpose on some servers such as Zodiac that has nations but global guilds were ruined partially by their sudden use just to bypass the fact you need gold now to make one.

@ max.

Well I tend to see US members on tag on other servers. I suppose we're centrally located on classic, but I can imagine the larger guilds having players spread across a few servers. Perhaps they don't have 'guildhouses' or big operations on each server, but I can imagine that not all guilds have 90% of their members play on one server. Maybe I'm wrong, idk.

Global guilds were ruined because Graal sucks now. They were also ruined because there is no competition anymore. Graal is just a chatroom now.

Having more limited guilds would promote guild activity + competition. I don't know about the idea of disabling global guilds in total though.

@Gladius:Nobody really cares about repping your own guild on another server. The server you maintain most activity on is where your guild should try to stay.

I don't think that guild shouldn't have the right to have an exclusive area for themselves. I also do not support removing guild gates. There is no point in having a guild area if other people are constantly inside of it bothering the guild.

The idea of "repping" your guild on another server is more or less based on the idea that "hey, my usual server is boring right now. how bout 3 of my guild buddies and me go to another server and kick some butt?"